Are we talking about highest ranking in the wording title or the actual power behind the title?

Nothing sounds more powerful than HRM and the head of the commonwealth(really two different positions,but still under Queen Elizabeth for 60 years now).
Elizabeth II is also queen of the realm in some of those member countries too.
So even though the commonwealth is directed by a council under the auspices of a secretary general, the Queen still is the titular head.

Too bad he'd already have the highest precedence in his own country. Doesn't do him much good.

Zap: HM The Queen has a lot of clout, actually, and there's no reason whatsoever that the secretary-general should have any real power.

Well, it's more accurate that the United Nations in general should be given more power so it can deal with international events more effectively since world affairs in general should take precedence (the world is bigger than the sum of its parts, so to speak), and the Secretary-General would have more power as a consequence of being the head of it.

I'll take your word for it that Elizabeth II has a decent amount of power, since you undoubtedly know more about that subject than I.

Well, it's more accurate that the United Nations in general should be given more power so it can deal with international events more effectively since world affairs in general should take precedence (the world is bigger than the sum of its parts, so to speak), and the Secretary-General would have more power as a consequence of being the head of it.

Similarly, if someone is supposedly high-ranked but their country is stuck in a recession while a theoretically less powerful person brings the unemployment rate below 8% in the face of determined opposition, how much validity does that have?